Best ending for Honest Hearts

Forum page

Killed everything good or bad, and somehow the white legs still "win". Really all the tribals are whack jobs or extremely annoying, so I just killed everything the third play through and with turbo and other drugs literally finished the whole module in less than ten minutes. Weak add on overall.

I've played thru HH twice [although I'm bugged on the 2nd run] and have read through the endings. It seems that no matter which option you take, there are always consequences. However, helping the evacuate Zion is the worst consequence as the white legs end up trashing this beautiful place, polluting it and ruining it out of sheer spite. If you wipe the WL's out, the Sorrows beocme warlike instead. Personally I think that's the lesser of the 2 evils. Having Zion remian pristine is more important, and having the Sorrows become more aggressive is in their best interests as well. At least they'll become more self reliant and able to defend themselves and not have to rely on the New Caananites like Daniel.

Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree. Ultimately, retreating from Zion is only a temporary solution anyway. If the White Legs followed the New Canaanites from New Canaan to the Zion Valley, why wouldn't they follow them again to the Mojave, in the long term? What's Daniel's plan: keep retreating whenever the White Legs or whatever other foederati Caesar sends after them find them? Retreat is only a temporary solution. In the long term, they need either victory or peaceful resolution. If peaceful resolution is impossible because the White Legs (or, ultimately, Caesar) can't be reasoned with, then they need victory. Idhan 20:51, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

That's actually one of the things I love about this series, there is almost always unintended consequences even for what the player considers the best action for everyone. The consequence for saving zion is increased militarism amongst the sorrows and the dead horses, the consequence for abandoning zion is that it becomes polluted and desecrated by the white legs.I think Daniel sums up the wages of warfare rather nicely, he argues that when you see joshua you don't see a real person or a pious man of god, you see a living testament to how war has ravages and deforms people physically,mentally, and spiritually. Daniel isn't naive he's experienced the pain that war has brought upon his community and the land of his ancestors firsthand and in the end The New Cannanites prowess with their ancestor John Brownings weapons didn't save their community or the land of their ancestors from the destruction of war. Daniel knows that it's risky to evacuate the sorrows from zion and that it might not work but in the end he knows that he has to do what's in his power to save the sorrows from being destroyed spiritually by war.Daniel understands that war is a drug, societies that partake in it are intoxicated by the power and feeling of it, he knows that war becomes an addiction that destroys individuals and societies morally. Joshua Graham indulged in the drug of war alongside Caesar and the blackfoot tribe, at first it was about survival but then it became about something much more.

Joshua found joy and meaning in the experience of war, it became a simplistic way of interpreting the world morally Us vs. Them and he found ways to rationalize the evil he commited. Former war reporter Chris Hedges has written that everything about the emotional experience is extreme and that the levels of emotion people experience in war are often beyond what most people ever experience in their daily lives. Joshua Graham became addicted to War in the same way many soldiers before him were addicted and no amount of evil,death, or destruction could stop him other than his own physical and social demise at hoover dam. He took his downfall as a sign from god that he was on the wrong path... but think about that it took a humiliating defeat, being disowned by his friends and comrades,having his name erased from "history", followed by being set on fire and thrown down a canyon for him to realize he was doing something wrong. It wasn't all the people he killed, it wasn't all the people who were enslaved, it wasn't all the women who were used and abused sexually, the cultures that were destroyed, or the families and tribes that were pulled apart... it was his own demise.

Even with his new lease on life, all the wisdom of his experiences, and all the peace and clarity he's found in his religion, Joshua has become sucked right back into his former role as General Badass War-machine. He's turned his religion into his own instrument for inflicting pain, this time it's all about God,Zion, and New Canaan where formerly it was about Civilization,Caesar, and the legion.The only thing that's really changed is the words and the causes by which he makes war. He quotes scripture about killing kids and muses eloquently on how to reconcile the virtues of God and war. He's still a full-blown war addict even after what happened to him in the legion and his inner transformation.If the player stops him from killing salt-upon-wounds he will realize that none of it was about god at all, it was all about his own quest for vengeance against caesar.

Joshua is exactly what Daniel wants to stop the Sorrows from becoming even if he knows it wont last. Joshua describes his addiction to war as "the fire" and that feeling is much more dangerous in groups than individuals. In the end Militarism is a disease and it's own god and societies that worship militarism are ALWAYS destroyed and failed by it. That's why increased militarism by the tribes of zion come with serious consequences.

In the end Daniel is trying to protect the sorrows from their own destruction. BTW when I first played HH I chose to save zion. damn i gotta work on condensing this stuff.

Personally I think the best ending would have been to fight the White legs so the Sorrows could stay in their homeland. However I totally disagree with the games scripted outcome of this. To make the claim that someone who stands up and fights for their home would make them more warlike and violent is absurd.

God forbid it ever happens, but if I was ever in a situation where I had to protect my home through the use of violence, its not going to make me a more violent person.

If anything helping the Sorrows escape should have had a more consequences. Its almost as if the writers are trying to push an anti-war idealism on us. Without learning to defend themselves they would have made easy pickings of their tribe. If they run away and hide once, they will have to run and hide the next time a group tries to invade their homeland. Being a pacifist race doesn’t exactly mix well with the post-apocalyptic world that is Fallout. ReapTheChaos 12:51, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems like it had been working for them they'd been living in zion for a long time and they hadn't been wiped out yet. It's not an uncommon to find hunter-gatherer tribes such as the sorrows that don't engage in warfare in the real world and even though post-apocalyptia isn't the best place to be a pacifist... it's still possible to engage in pacifism, switzerland hasn't had a war in 400 years despite 400 years of odd european turmoil, quakers and the amish have refused to fight in america's wars for years despite the threat of being imprisoned. Just because a situation is far from ideal doesn't mean a culture gives up on it's most dearly held values.

Also victory can sometimes have more drastic consequences for a tribe or nation than defeat, in the 20th century there were two countries, Israel and the united states, who woke up to discover that their power and influence had been elevated by war. They both fight way more wars than most wealthy industrialized countries do and in the end they will both failed by their militarism, because they are involved in long, dirty, expensive wars where the definition of "victory" is unobtainable and vague.The culture of militarism already failed us once in vietnam we just didn't learn our lesson. But war is really drug when you think about it and it's not uncommon for societies with militarist cultures to relapse back into war-making just a few years after a humiliating defeat.

It's not uncommon for a significant victory to cause a culture of militarism to take root especially if the victory is considered noble and just and all that. I don't feel like the writers are trying to push an 'anti-war' agenda, they left the option to push the sorrows into war and as the game was going on there wasn't much of an attempt to push for the player to choose one way or the other,most players from what i've seen chose to save zion anyway( I did). But I think the message their trying to send home is that even victory can come with grave consequences. If you choose to save zion your really doing it at the expense of the sorrows because they've already made the decision to evacuate zion and half of their tribe has already evacuated. Taking half a pacifist tribe and throwing them into the middle of a combat zone is kinda like leaving a small child in downtown LA during rush hour traffic they really aren't equipped or prepared to handle it.

As an aside, I kinda wish you didn't have to work for two mormons who think that they know whats best for everyone and are actively trying to turn everyone into christians.
--Boredintheusa 22:28, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

One think the developers & writers appeared to have glossed over is the fact that the Salt Lake City Vault was designed so that everyones clothes would disintergrate after 6 months of the vaults sealing. Seeing how that little incident hasn't appeared to affected Daniel or Joshua, or that we get any hint about their peoples past, I think the developers missed a golden opportunity here.

I also agree that I was uncomfortable in helping Mormons and I laughed out loud when Joshua claims that the New Caanaites were the "inheritors of thousands of years of tradition! LOL! If I recall, Mormonism didn't begin until the 1830's when a pair of mysterious golden tablets were found blah blah blah.... I won't go any further as I find the whole concept of Mormanism completely laughable. Be that as it may, Dan and Josh are still doing their best to help, even if it does mean converting ignorant tribals to their brand of mumbo jumbo.

Still though, saving Zion by massacring the White Legs is for the best and while it is regretful that the Sorrows become more aggressive, I still maintain that they are better off being able to defend themselves rather than become victims of another band of Raiders aggression. And no matter which ending you choose, Daniel is always wracked with guilt so he has no happy ending at all. Getting Joshua to spare Salt-Upon-Wounds is the best outcome for him at least although that does rely on a very hard speech check to succeed.

Zion is indeed a temple, in the purest sense, and it is worth saving and if the cost is that the Sorrows become more assertive, then who better placed then to defend such a beautiful place than the tribe who inherited that bountious piece of earth? The WL's are nothing more than savages who offer nothing to humanity and no one should mourn their passing. Their demise is but another step to recivilising humanity and the gradual reintroduction of stability, law, order and education.

As an aside, I though the Survivalists story was probably one of the best bits of characterisation and writing in Fallout thus far. His story rang so true, despite how brief his logs were. You really got the sense of a man struggling alone for most of the time, deperately trying to not give into his inner fears and darkest moments. Discovering his stashes and hideouts and putting his story together was the highlight of HH for me.

One final note: I wish you could climb up and look inside that crashed plane! It's so tantalising and annoying that you can't get up there. Captain Taipan 01:01, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

I liked the survivalists story too... it was good writing and I like how the sorrows confused the story of the father in the cave with Daniel's christian teachings that was hilarious, especially the look on Daniel's face because you can tell he was proud of himself until you revealed to him that they didn't get it at all.

It was sucked that the survivalist lost his wife and child-twice. But you get the feeling reading the final logs that he found some comfort as an elderly man watching over the sorrows and protecting them (also the story made me wonder about this 'School' the original sorrows came from).

Saving Zion is definitely worth it in the long run and choosing to spare salt-upon-wounds seems to make the outcome of events at least a little easier for everyone involved.
Does anyone else get the feeling that Joshua is using the tribes of Zion to do New Canaan's dirty work? I mean you don't see any other New Canaanites at all in the game, if I'm right aren't all the new canaanites holed up in grand-staircase? It's not inconceivable that Joshua Graham would be sent by New Canaan to rendezvous with the dead horses (whom he encountered during his legion days) and organize the tribes and stop the white legs from destroying what's left of the new canaanites. It's awfully convenient that the zion valley geographically and the zion tribals form a buffer zone between the white legs and the new canaanites.I think Joshua's affection for the dead horses and tribal culture is probably genuine, but does anyone wonder if organizing the war against the white legs was ALL his idea. Joshua is kinda like the black sheep of new canaan and because of that he can be used to do things and be seen doing things that other new canaanites could not be. It had to come across some high-ranking new canaanite's mind, send this old battered soldier who makes everyone uncomfortable out into the field to organize tribal resistance against the white legs and hopefully even if it all falls apart it would still buy new canaan some much needed time.

Similarly to everyone, I loved the survivalists story; it was brilliantly written and is really interesting, sad, and satisfying at the same time. In terms of the main story I decided to crush the white legs. If the sorrows had been evacuated then what would they have done then? The life that awaited them in the Mojave or somewhere similar would have thrust even more violence upon them than throwing the White Legs out of Zion and then becoming more militaristic. In addition, Zion just had to be preserved, it is by far the nicest place to live you come across in FNV. There's plenty of clean water and food, and comparatively very little danger. In fact currently the 'fluff' for my courier will be that he 'retires' to Zion once he's too old for the hustle and bustle of the Mojave. Furthermore, I can see that Daniel's intentions were good but I really felt like he ignored what they wanted and believed. He seems quite happy to replace the culture and religion they already have and he wants them to leave Zion and says they want to, yet Waking Cloud seems to love the Mojave and even suggests that you stay there instead of returning to the Mojave. Also, Follows-Chalk is seen as weird in his tried for wanting to leave Zion, although I did tell him he should see the world as his heart seems set on it. It annoys me that the developers seem to value the defeating the white legs ending less by giving you a silver trophy for it rather than a gold trophy for the evacuation ending. Who are they to judge? They are both morally ambiguous choices - isnt' that the point.

I thought killing the WL was by far the most effective option. For starters, I side NCR/Independent so lettig the WL's live and strengthen the Legion is somthing I want to fight. And letting them destroy Zion is terrible as it is basically untouched, with even minimal pre-war spoilage. And any end for the WL that lets them survive would go on to hurt further innocents, even if they just turn into small bands of raiders, they're bad people. So again there death is good. The militization of the tribes is somthing that needs to occur, because they find new strength in them selves and don't have to outsource there problems to someone more capable. Dan, is just plain unhappy, no matter what he has problems so try not to even factor him in. Joshua's ending is best if you kill Salt in open combat rather than exicution style, because he keeps his military mind while gaining some humanity. Following these choices also allow Happy Trails to prosper, another good thing.

Just some other note's, I definately agree with eveything said about the Survivalist. As for the PS3 seemingly promoting non-violence, I think that has more to do with them believing fewer people would want to choose leaving rather than fighting, making it "harder" and worth more. So think of the gold trophy as a reward for taking your time to do it instead of a moral promotion of cowardism XxSick DemonxX 06:11, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boredintheusa.
Those who choose to exterminate White Legs fail to see that while you are doing that, you make Sorrow addict to a Drug called - War - "War Never Changes"
Sure, it all seems to be about Survival, at first, ultimately leads Sorrow to their own destruction.
Remember, "War Never Changes" and the Fallout world concept, the Very game you're playing...
islandking March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Honest Hearts constantly mentions the "innocence" of the Sorrows, and you can see how innocence is so hard to come by in a post-apocalyptic world. When you find the corpse of The Father, AKA the Survivalist, his final letter mentions both how he promised the Sorrows' ancestors Zion Valley to compensate for all their troubles, or sorrows, but he also strongly pushes the importance of innocence, and the beauty of it, claiming that innocence is a thing of beauty to be preserved at all costs. Daniel is alot like The Father, in that his goal is preserving the innocence and compassion of the Sorrows, while Joshua focuses on the preservation of the promised Zion. Honestly, i belive that the preservation and enrichment of the innocence and love of the sorrows, which is so rarely seen in the cruel world of fallout, was the main focus of the story. But the choice is up to you, save the sorrows innocence and spirituality, or save the gift that The Father promised them. Although killing the white legs seems to be the most logical choice and the best thing for everyone, because it causes the Sorrows and Dead Horses to push back the 80's from some key travel points, helping a ton with trade and keeping back the 80's from raiding on some major highways.

I am going to have to fight the white legs, because I have to save the canyon. Also, I can't simply based my decision on evacuation on making Daniel happy, because he wants the Sororows to be peaceful. I would like them to be peaceful. But the sorrows cannot be "pacifists" or peaceful based on innocence. The true choice to seek mercy, nonviolence (either absoulutely or to use violence as last resort) is not fostered by innocence but by wisdom and empathy. Daniel is (who would have guessed given his religious worldview) being paternalistic rather than empowering of the Sorrows. Am I sad that the sorrows will become more bloodthirsty? yes. But you can't simply shield people from violence as a means to foster them as a peaceful group. That meta-narrative basically says that peaceful or merciful people are delicate flowers, when many great leaders for nonviolence were bold and sometimes formerly violent people.

I always went for the Save Zion/Spare Salt Upon Wounds ending. It just seemed to be the best solution. Instead of fulfilling Daniel's or Joshua's agenda, I always tried to do what was best for the Sorrows. Saving Zion and teaching a lesson to the Sorrows about defending themselves and mercy felt exactly like what they needed to learn to survive. Daniel's way would have left them as pacifists forever, who would always run away until they couldn't run anymore, while Joshua's way would have turned them into warmongers because they wouldn't learn the lesson of mercy.

Meanwhile, The Father/Survivalists's story doesn't just show the contrast between innocence and the preservation of Zion, but also about taking the middle road. The Father himself was someone who mostly preserved his own innocence, as he spent his life helping others in Zion, while also defending them from people who would destroy them like the Vault 22 dwellers. In essence, The Father had both Daniel's kindness and Joshua's willingness to fight, without having their faults.

Daniel and Joshua mean well, but they are also standard examples of religious extremists: they both believe without a doubt that they are right and also that their religious beliefs (and God) give them the right to interfere with the Sorrows' lives. They are too devoted to their own beliefs to consider any other alternatives, nor do they consider what the Sorrows think. If you notice in the game, the Sorrows themselves never actually get to voice their opinion, instead the two outsider Canaanites try to push the Sorrows into doing what the Canaanites think is right. Simply because neither Joshua nor Daniel consider them equals, they both look down on them, not in a malevolent way, but in the same way adults often view children.

This is why I think that showing the Sorrows what their beloved Father would do is the best course of action: instead of pushing Daniel's or Joshua's worldview onto them, the Courier indirectly shows them what kind of person The Father was: someone who was compassionate and merciful, while also fully capable of defending the innocent from those who would do them harm. By doing this, the Sorrows leave behind their role as "innocents" and instead become more like The Father, the person they revere.